Commentary

The Pursuit Of Happiness

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized , , , ,

While waiting for the long-overdue Supreme Court Tariff ruling, I’ve had time to reflect on why so many Americans have either a dim view or little knowledge of our capitalist economic system. How can a simple, common-sense system be misunderstood by so many?

I’ve been reading Zhang Weiying’s “The Logic of the Market: An Insider’s View of Chinese Economic Reform” to better understand how the Chinese economy compares to our own. Most economists talk in jargon, but the Author explains capitalism in terms of happiness rather than marginal returns and GDP.

In capitalism, people engage in consensual exchange. Consumers and suppliers freely exchange a wide range of goods. As each gets what they asked for, both are happy. You go to the supermarket, you get what you want, and the store gets paid. Both of you win.

However, if goods or cash change hands with only one party happy and the other sad, it’s robbery. Think about that. Someone points a gun at you, demanding your stuff. The thief is happy, but you’re really sad. The point of human interaction is shared satisfaction, rather than gloom.

The gauging of happiness and sadness in society to determine whether an action is successful or just a thief. can be applied to both governance and economics. Most commercial transactions in free-market economies result in happiness for all the participants. You go to Costco, get a hot dog, and fill your cart with goods you value. At checkout, both you and Costco are happy.

Continue reading →

Trump: Inept Colonialist?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Shades of the British in India, we depose a Leader favorable to our enemies, leaving the existing government compliant to our rule. Trump seized and deposed Venezuela’s leader and set up a colonial relationship with the remainder of his government.

Facing an overwhelming force, those in charge of the nation surrendered control of their primary asset, oil, to the U.S. We will take the oil and market it. Whatever amount we decide to share with Venezuela must be used to purchase U.S.-made goods.

These terms sound like our colonial relationship with King George’s Britain. Control of our trade lay with the mother country. We could only buy from British manufacturers. Our Declaration of Independence leaves no doubt about what we thought of the situation. Now, Trump has taken on George III’s mantle.

At least past colonial Empires went after places that produced stuff that didn’t compete with their home products. Tobacco, indigo, sugar, and tea didn’t grow in Britain or France. These mercantilist nations made money by selling colonial produce and by monopolizing the sale of manufactured goods to their colonies.

Isn’t someone in the present administration aware that the U.S. is the world’s top oil producer? It’s as if, when England was the largest wool exporter, it deposed a foreign leader to expand his nation’s wool production. One could see eliminating a competitor, but Trump only talks about rapidly expanding Venezuela’s output. Even crazy George III could see the flaws in this policy.

Continue reading →

Getting It Right At 250

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We always get to see numerous replays of the New Year’s Eve Times Square Ball drop, but this year was different. Instead of the Ball staying grounded, it went right back up, proclaiming the U.S.’s impending 250th birthday, to drop again on July 3. This coming event can’t help but shine a bright light on one of history’s most extraordinary groups-our founding fathers.

Sadly, the people with the loudest megaphones on both the right and the left have chosen to present a distorted view of these remarkable people. The New York Times’ much-debunked 1619 Project portrayed the Founding Fathers as pro-slavery and the Revolution fought to preserve it. While historians and economists pointed out the project’s numerous errors, it lives on in progressive circles along with the nonsensical idea “Slavery is America’s original sin.”

The only thing original about slavery in colonial America was the Quakers, along with their co-religionists in England, calling for the abolition of the eons-old practice. Before Quakers, no religion, not the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religion considered slavery a sin. From the Quakers’ shared spaces with other congregationalist Protestants, the idea that slavery is an abomination spread. Slavery was hardly original here, but the abolitionist cause was.

In a world of hereditary caste systems, with people as chattels at the bottom, whether we called them slaves, serfs, coolies, or untouchables, their lives were controlled by those above them. Challenging this system was genuinely original.

It is telling that for all his achievements, Ben Franklin could never sit in the House of Lords. No wonder self-made Americans weren’t keen on the British class system.

It is, therefore, discouraging to see what many consider the beginning of the impending birthday celebration: Ken Burns’ six-part PBS series “The American Revolution” repeats the popular messaging in progressive circles that the founding fathers were pro-slavery.

Continue reading →

No Predictions, Just Clues

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

As I alluded to in my last post, I was optimistic a year ago. Wrong on a lot, but I had some idea of how things might go. Right now, I have to admit, I’m clueless. The Ukraine War still rages. We’re bombing boats on the high seas and suspected terrorist sites in Nigeria. Not exactly peace on earth.

Inflation is still uncomfortably high. The national debt gets scarier by the minute. Employment is dicey, and manufacturing jobs are falling. Consumer sentiment is weak:

Yet the stock market keeps hitting new highs, and the economy is growing. What gives? Darned if I know, given today’s crosscurrents. I’ll share the clues I’m looking for that clarify the situation.

The first, expected early in 2026, is the Supreme Court’s ruling on the executive branch’s tariff powers. So many of Trump’s second-term actions depend on his ability to slap tariffs on anyone at will; any limits will change the face of his administration. Without knowing what restrictions the court will put on the executive, it’s hard to plan.

If the court narrowly decides that the law underlying the tariffs fails to cover them, but no further, the administration can invoke another law and reimpose the tariffs. Those who are negatively affected will sue again, and we’re back to square one, confused. Previously, I complained that the court was taking way too much time to decide a fundamental constitutional question: Does the first article of the Constitution mean what it clearly states, only Congress has the power to levy tariffs?

Continue reading →

Hopes Dashed in ’25

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

A year ago, I was still befuddled by the Democrats having secured the Republican Presidential nomination for the weakest candidate, Donald Trump, by burying him in bogus lawsuits. That made him a sympathetic figure to many and sucking all the media attention away from his competition. Democrats nominated the only person who could manage to lose big. While pondering this turn of events, I had to come to terms with the fact that Trump was back.

As I pointed out at the time, the outlook could be very positive. After all, Trump’s first term employed supply-side economics to cut taxes on capital and work to reduce onerous regulations. These actions have led to solid pre-COVID growth. Increasing supply is the best way to tackle the high inflation engendered by the Biden administration’s heavy spending. A government-directed economy was shoveling vast sums into the fight against “climate change.” Covid relief swallowed more billions.

Daming the river of wild spending to reduce demand growth, while pumping up supply, worked for Reagan in subduing double-digit inflation and promised to work for Trump. Sure, Trump had added some things to his campaign, such as no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security, which are not supply-side, but on balance, things looked to be improving on the economic front.

After Trump’s peaceful first term, the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East raged under Biden after his disastrous Afghan withdrawal. In the campaign, Trump promised to bring peace quickly to both areas.

Millions of illegal aliens streamed across our southern border, with the Biden administration just throwing up its hands. Americans know they need immigrants, but not in this way. Trump promised to get control of the border.

The Trump Administration has taken action in all three areas, but it’s unpopular:

The question is why? While other essential problem areas, such as education and healthcare, exist, these three are most directly under the president’s control. The states dominate education, and neither party has a handle on reasonably priced healthcare.

While Trump, in his first term, imposed tariffs on a few products, such as steel and aluminum, and forced a revision of the NAFTA trade treaty with Canada and Mexico, the administration granted many tariff exemptions, and the new treaty had only minor changes. This time around, Trump has wielded tariffs like a club, hitting everyone in the room.

One thing we know about tariffs is that they don’t lower prices—quite the opposite. Claiming crisis conditions and national security, Trump last spring imposed the highest tariffs on imports since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs—coffee from Brazil and chocolates from Switzerland were deemed existential threats.

Continue reading →